May I invite your attention to a particularly vexing thread in GD, please?

[IrishAyes]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025271454

It's about NYC giving a permit for an apartment building that will have a separate entrance IN THE ALLEY for those subsidized folks graced by the privilege of living anywhere near their betters who are paying top market rate. Only the rich fat cats will get to use the front door.

There's a whiff of agreement or at least acquiescence to this, and of course when I said it's incumbent on the poor to fight for their rights, I was accused of poor-bashing by a person who prefers the indirect condescension of insisting the poor are incapable of dutiful resistance to their economic overlords.

I hold otherwise.

What say you?

[shraby]

1. It takes money to fight an atrocity such as this. That is the lack of which

that makes people poor...therefore handicapped in the fight against this wrong.

Given the monetary resources, they are perfectly capable of fighting the good fight.

[ret5hd]

2. money...or numbers and determination.

just saying'.

[Starry Messenger]

3. I don't know how that is even legal.

I guess if we actually had anti-classist-protections in the civil rights codes, this would be a much different country.

I think people will fight back. I mean, based on socio-economic patterns by race, this is essentially going to be a racially segregated entrance as well, and *those* are definitely illegal.

Once you have separate accommodation, there is separate treatment.

[F4lconF16]

4. As the person you are accusing

I'd like to make a few comments to clarify, at risk of reigniting the discussion here. (If a host has a problem with this, please let me know and I'll self-delete; I know I'm not a normal poster here).

I was in no way trying to imply that the poor are incapable of resistance in all cases. Just that there are often good and legitimate reasons not to fight back against those holding them captive. Edit: what I mean by "incapable of resistance" is "unable to fight for fear of serious economic or other consequences", not "unable to fight, period". I absolutely think the poor can and should fight when they can. The resistance of the poor has been a driving force for change for a long time, and it would be sorely missed.

What you said was that "it reflects badly on poor folks too, when they let themselves be made doormats".

Now, if you were talking about only those who "let" themselves be oppressed, then yes, you're right.

But I interpreted it (in context of the OP) that you were referring to all poor, and that any poor person who isn't doing anything to fight the powers that be should be held accountable. I also think that when you say "reflects badly" on someone, it means that others than think less of them because of their actions. For instance, I think it reflects badly on Rick Perry when he activates the National Guard to fight children, and yes, I think less of him than because of it. Therefore, saying "it reflects badly on poor folks too, when they let themselves be made doormats" would mean that we should think less of any poor person who isn't actively fighting for their rights. I would disagree with that statement, because there are many times where someone can't fight (see my Walmart example in that thread).

If the first one was what you were meaning, than my apologies, and our resulting discussion was unnecessary. However, I interpreted your statement as the second meaning because I didn't see any evidence of the poor "letting" themselves be oppressed in the OP. If anything, the opposite.

[IrishAyes]

5. 'When' certainly leaves the door open for 'if'.

You're the one jumping the gun here, too freely filling in what you don't understand (or wish to twist, how would I know?) with your own assumptions or wishes about what 'I'm saying'. But I guarantee you this is the last I wish to hear of it after several attempts at straightening you out. Which I have a right to try to do when you're addressing something I said.

Every functional adult has the right and the duty to participate in the struggle for the common good. Because it hurts or is inconvenient provides very little cover. Excusing absence from the fray really insults those you're trying to let off the hook for supposedly noble reasons. If well meant, you still need to remember which road is paved with good intentions. We've already got striking fast food workers, and yes indeed they've been fired. Doesn't look to me like they're backing down!

Think about that and then try again (no, actually, don't) to tell me how the least of these should be excused from the fray. They are wiser, braver and more noble than anyone preaching that they could be excused for opting out for any reason. TOGETHER WE ARE STRONG.

[F4lconF16]

6. I'd ask you to look at my last post to you in the other thread.

It contains much of what would be my response to this.

This isn't the place for me to argue with you, so I won't continue. I respect you and your opinions you have voiced here, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree with some of what you have said.

Together we are strong, and I hope we never forget that. Perhaps I'll support you in your fights elsewhere. Have a good day.

[TBF]

7. Yeah I posted in that ridiculous thread.

I told them they are going to be taxed and like it - or they are going to suffer the consequences. And then Kentuckian posted this (which is awesome):

Star Member TheKentuckian (19,688 posts)
63. I think it is already too late for that too or will be by the time the adjustments

could be implemented and optimized (if such ever happened but that is a different story), the need for labor diminishes, in fifty years or less there won't be enough to spread around to less than half of the possible labor force. I'm thinking 30% with some solid redundancy and what there will be to do will be complicated.

The current system isn't capable of distributing resources allowing for fairly broad prosperity and eventually conditions will not allow it to distribute them almost at all no matter how regulated, the flaw is fundamental and as such cannot be danced around.

Now, don't get me wrong. We damn well should do exactly as you prescribed but it is a bridge not a destination.

I suspect the truly major players can see or pay people who can see the end of the road, hence the ca$h out of thin air leverage to corner all the real value and then when the music stops pay half of us to murder the other half to make sure they get to plop down in that last chair.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5273592



He's correct that we are at end game of capitalism - at least in this country. If I remember correctly Imperialism by Lenin talks about this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

[IrishAyes]

8. Thanks for the tip - I was going to visit again anyway for updates, but

it's always possible for me to miss something.

And what you shared there is of critical importance. Wish I could disagree with Kentuckian, but I can't. I've been reading Krugman, Reich, and more importantly, Wolff for too long and I suspect perhaps so has K. Thanks also for the link. I've read a good bit of Lenin too, but not everything and as with all great works it's important to revisit them from time to time. At my age some almost seem brand new! I want to work my way through your reading list again too.

That's what I wanted most in retirement after basic needs are met - time to read to my heart's content. I used to have to steal time to read in earlier years, but now there's precious little standing in my way. Have to rake out my house occasionally, and I do love gardening and my dogs - but basically my time's my own now. I want to put the remaining years to good use.

[IrishAyes]

9. And Piketty! How could I have left him off my list?

I've read reviews and seen interviews about 'Capital' but won't be able to afford it until and unless a copy somewhere winds up on eBay. But I imagine that's the kind of book most people who'd buy it would want to hang onto, and I can't blame them. If I ever get my hands on it, I'm not letting go either.